[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] multiple values and tail contexts

[Michael Sperber]

Jed Davis <r6rs at jdev.users.panix.com> writes:

> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:06:35PM +0200, Michael Sperber wrote:
>> 
>> Jed Davis <r6rs at jdev.users.panix.com> writes:
>> 
>> > The definition of "values" claims to specify exactly those
>> > continuations which may accept other than one argument, and -- for
>> > example -- those in which the <consequent> and <alternate> of an "if"
>> > form (section 9.5.3) are evaluated are not among them; 
>> 
>> `if' doesn't create new continuations for <consequent> and <alternate>.
>
> Of course it shouldn't; that's obvious.  But where is it normatively
> proclaimed that I can't, and (if it is) why have I not found such or a
> pointer to it in any of the obvious and semi-obvious places?

In section 9.21, on tail calls.  I'll try to clarify it a bit closer to
where you're looking for the next round.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla